UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
|
|
- Amberlynn Lane
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 JOHN GALLEGOS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA :-cv-000-ljo-mjs 0 Plaintiff, v. MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Defendant. CHAU B. TRAN, Plaintiff, v. MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Defendant. I. INTRODUCTION ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; DECLINING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT IN TRAN V. MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT, :-CV--LJO-SAB; AND GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS IN GALLEGOS V. MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT, :-cv-000-ljo-mjs (DOC. ). :-CV-00-LJO-SAB 0 John Gallegos ( Gallegos ), a plaintiff in one of the above-captioned cases, was formerly employed by Merced Irrigation District, the sole Defendant in both cases, until his termination on October, 0. After exhausting his administrative remedies with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( EEOC ) and receiving a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC on December, 0, Gallegos and another former employee of Defendant, Chau Tran ( Tran ), filed a lawsuit in this Court on February, 0, as co-plaintiffs. Tran v. Merced Irrigation Dist., :-CV--LJO-SAB ( Tran ), Doc.. Their joint complaint alleged claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of ( Title VII ). Id.
2 0 0 On April, 0, Defendant moved to sever Gallegos claims from Tran s, arguing that their claims did not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence and did not involve common questions of law or fact. Tran, Doc. -. On May, 0, this Court granted Defendant s motion to sever. Tran, Doc. ( Dismissal Order ). Gallegos claims were SEVER[ED] and DISMISSE[D] from the Tran action, with the Court specifically noting Gallegos is free to file a new, separate lawsuit. Id. at. Six weeks later, on July, 0, Gallegos initiated a separate lawsuit, Gallegos v. Merced Irrigation Dist., :-cv-000-ljo-mjs ( Gallegos ). On September, 0, Defendant moved to dismiss Gallegos complaint on the ground that the statute of limitations expired prior to July, 0. Gallegos, Doc.. It is undisputed that the EEOC issued its right-to-sue notice to Gallegos on December, 0.The Tran lawsuit was filed days later, on February, 0. Defendant argues that, even if it were appropriate to toll the statute of limitations during the pendency of Gallegos claims in the Tran lawsuit, only days would have remained within which Gallegos could file his suit after being dismissed from Tran on May, 0. See Gallegos Doc. - at -. Given that Gallegos waited approximately six weeks from that dismissal date to file his separate complaint on September, 0, Defendant maintains that Gallegos renewed Title VII claims are barred by the applicable 0-day statute of limitations. See id.; U.S.C. 000e-(f)(). Defendant s motion prompted the Court to review its own Dismissal Order in Tran in light of this newly raised statute of limitations issue. On November, 0, this Court ordered Defendant to show cause why the Court should not sua sponte reconsider its own prior judgment in Tran pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 0(b), such that that Gallegos s claims will not be dismissed but rather severed and transferred to a separate case, with the effective filing date of the original Tran Complaint. See Gallegos Doc. ( OSC ). Defendant filed a response to the OSC on November 0, 0. Gallegos Doc.. Plaintiffs counsel filed identical replies on behalf of Gallegos and Tran on November, 0. Gallegos Doc..
3 0 0 II. ANALYSIS It is apparent from that review that the Court should have considered explicitly the potential prejudice due to a statute of limitations bar that might follow Gallegos dismissal without prejudice. Rush v. Sport Chalet, Inc., F.d, (th Cir. 0) ( [D]istrict courts who dismiss rather than sever must conduct a prejudice analysis, including loss of otherwise timely claims if new suits are blocked by statutes of limitations. ) (internal quotation marks omitted). If prejudice would occur, the judge could and should have allowed [the misjoined] claim [ ] to continue as a separate suit so that it would not be time-barred. Elmore v. Henderson, F.d 00, 0 (th Cir. 000); see also See Corley v. Google, Inc., F.R.D., (N.D. Cal. 0) (severing rather than dismissing plaintiffs who could be adversely impacted by statute of limitations); Marti v. Padilla, No. :0-CV-000-JMR, 00 WL 0, at * (E.D. Cal. Mar. 0, 00) ( [D]ismissal of misjoined Defendants without prejudice would cause unfair prejudice to [p]laintiff's substantial rights and produce a harsh result under the applicable statute of limitations.... [which] would in effect be the equivalent of dismissal with prejudice, as [p]laintiff would be barred from refiling his claims under the applicable statute of limitations. This result would contradict Rule which states that [m]isjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissing an action and that a court may drop a party only on just terms. ). [W]hen a court severs a claim against a party under Rule, the suit simply continues against the severed party in another guise. Corley, F.R.D. at (internal citations and quotations omitted). The statute of limitations is held in abeyance, and the severed suit can proceed so long as it initially was filed within the limitations period. Id. This approach was not considered in Tran. Defendant continues to insist that any prejudice resulting from the statute of limitations is the risk assumed by the parties who caused the misjoinder. Gallegos Doc. at (citing Corley, F.R.D. at ). While several district court decisions from this Circuit have included this language, most do not ultimately rely on that proposition. For example, while the district court in Corley relied upon two other cases, Robinson v. Geithner, 0 WL, * (E.D. Cal. Jan. 0, 0), and Funtanilla v.
4 0 0 Tristan, 00 WL, * (E.D. Cal. Mar. 0, 00), for the assumption of risk proposition quoted above, Corley ultimately departed from that line of precedent, reasoning that two considerations... weigh[ed] against dismissal, namely () the instant action[] present[ed] several novel legal questions ; and () although the Ninth Circuit ha[d] not squarely addressed the issue, other circuits [had] generally held that a district court should sever rather than dismiss parties when the statute of limitations comes into play. Corley, F.R.D. at -. Likewise, while the district court in Robinson acknowledged the assumption of risk caselaw, that court also acknowledged that it must consider the reasonableness of dismissing the misjoined plaintiffs claims, including the practical impacts of dismissal. 0 WL *-*0. In addition, while Corley is correct that there is no Ninth Circuit decision that directly addresses the narrow issue of whether a party assumes the risk of being impacted by the statute of limitations by filing misjoined claims, see Corley, F.R.D. at, the Ninth Circuit s decision in Rush v. Sport Chalet, Inc., F.d (th Cir. 0), strongly suggests that dismissal is inappropriate where prejudice would result. Rush involved a Plaintiff with a disability who sued several retail establishments within a single shopping mall regarding physical barriers that impeded her access to their stores. Id. at. The district court sua sponte determined that the defendants were improperly joined under Rule 0(a)(), and thus dismissed the claims against all but one of the defendants without prejudice pursuant to Rule. Id. Ninth Circuit determined that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint against the misjoined defendants without evaluating the prejudice to Plaintiff, including loss of otherwise timely claims if new suits are blocked by statutes of limitations, expressly adopting the approaches taken by the Third Circuit in DirecTV, Inc. v. Leto, F.d, - (d Cir. 00), and Seventh Circuit in Elmore, F.d at 0-. Rush puts to bed Defendant s attempt to write off as a surmise[] based upon dicta from the Seventh Circuit s decision in Elmore this Court s concern that it should have performed a prejudice analysis Tran. Rush plainly held that the district court in that case abused its discretion... by dismissing rather than severing [misjoined claims] without evaluating
5 0 0 prejudice to plaintiff, including prejudice arising from the statute[] of limitations. Rush, F.d at. As the OSC explained, in evaluating potential prejudice to Gallegos that would flow from dismissal rather than severance, the Court could not assume that the filing of the Tran lawsuit automatically tolled the statute of limitations applicable to Gallegos later-dismissed claims: Elmore strongly suggests that the statute of limitations applicable to a misjoined claim is not tolled during the period between the filing of the misjoined claim and that claim s dismissal without prejudice. See Elmore F.d at 0 (noting that while the statute of limitations is tolled for class members until it is determined that the case cannot proceed as a class action, no such automatic tolling would be appropriate outside the class context); see also Corley [] F.R.D. at (explaining that under most circumstances when a court drops a party under Rule, that party is dismissed without prejudice and that [w]hen that occurs, the statute of limitations is not tolled because we treat the initial complaint as if it never existed. ). OSC at -. Defendant does not appear to dispute this, but does argue that the statute of limitations did not cause prejudice at the time Gallegos was dismissed from the Tran lawsuit because Title VII s 0-day statute of limitations is subject to equitable tolling in appropriate circumstances. Gallegos Doc. at. Long-settled equitable-tolling principles instruct that generally, a litigant seeking equitable tolling bears the burden of establishing two elements: () that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and () that some extraordinary circumstances stood in his way. Kwai Fun Wong v. Beebe, F.d 00, 0 (th Cir. 0), aff'd and remanded sub nom. United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, S. Ct. (0)(internal quotations and citations omitted). Equitable tolling has been applied in Title VII cases where the claimant has actively pursued his judicial remedies by filing a defective pleading during the statutory period. See Irwin v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, U.S., (0). For example, the Ninth Circuit has applied equitable tolling when a plaintiff timely filed a Title VII claim in Equitable tolling is a separate consideration from automatic tolling. See, e.g., Gandy v. Pepsi-Cola & Nat. Brand Beverages, Ltd., No. CIV.A. 0- JEI, 0 WL, at * (D.N.J. Sept., 0) (acknowledging that automatic tolling does not apply to a complaint that is later dismissed without prejudice, but applying equitable tolling instead).
6 0 0 a state court lacking jurisdiction over those claims. Valenzuela v. Kraft Inc., 0 F.d 0 (th Cir. ) ( Valenzuela II ). At the time Valenzuela filed her action in state court it was unclear whether federal courts had exclusive jurisdiction over Title VII claims. Id. at. Acknowledging conflicting authority on the question, the Ninth Circuit later held that federal courts possess exclusive jurisdiction over Title VII claims. Valenzuela v. Kraft, Inc., F.d, & n. (th Cir. ) ( Valenzuela I ), abrogated by Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. Donnelly, U.S. 0 (0) (holding that federal and state courts possess concurrent jurisdiction over Title VII claims). When Valenzuela later re-filed her action in federal court, the Ninth Circuit applied equitable tolling, reasoning that she should not be denied a chance to present her case because she chose the wrong line of precedent. Valenzuela II, 0 F.d at ; see also Clymore v. United States, F.d 0, - (th Cir. 000) (applying equitable tolling to second lawsuit where plaintiff timely filed first action in the wrong venue and promptly re-filed it in the correct venue after the statute of limitations had run); In re Randall's Island Family Golf Centers, Inc., B.R. 0, 0 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), adhered to on reargument, 0 B.R. (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 00) (same in context of misjoinder). The Court does not find Valenzuela to be squarely on point. Unlike in Valenzuela, here there was no body of conflicting authority that would have suggested to Gallegos that it was appropriate for him to file a joint action with Tran. No party points to any other extraordinary circumstance that would have warranted application of equitable tolling under those circumstances. The need for extraordinary circumstances is all the more apparent in light of the authority, discussed previously, directly rejecting application of automatic tolling in the context of misjoinder: When a court drops a defendant under Rule, that defendant is dismissed from the case without prejudice. When that occurs, the statute of limitations is not tolled because we treat the initial complaint as if it never existed. DirecTV, Inc. v. Leto, F.d, (d Cir. 00) (internal citations and quotations omitted)(emphasis added); see also Corley, F.R.D. at (citing DirecTV). The Court concludes that if it had performed the requisite prejudice analysis, it likely would have concluded that severance, rather than dismissal, was
7 0 0 warranted. But that does not end the inquiry. In order to revisit the underlying Dismissal Order, the Court must invoke Fed. R. Civ. P. 0(b), which provides: On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party... from a final judgment... for... () mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; () newly discovered evidence...; () fraud... misrepresentation, or misconduct...; () the judgment is void; () the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged...; or () any other reason that justifies relief. A Rule 0(b) motion must be made within a reasonable time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 0(c)(). The only plausible basis for relief from the Dismissal Order is Rule 0(b)(). However, Rule 0(b)() is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent injustice and is, like equitable tolling, to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances exist. Harvest v. Castro, F.d, (th Cir. 00). To justify relief there must be both injury and circumstances beyond [Gallegos ] control that prevented him from proceeding with the action in a proper fashion. Id. (emphasis added). Here, while Gallegos certainly has been injured, it is impossible for the Court to make the latter finding. Gallegos waited days after the issuance of the Dismissal Order to re-file his suit. Had he re-filed at any time within the day window that would have remained had equitable tolling applied to the period of time Gallegos claims were pending in Tran, Gallegos could have argued (and this Court reasonably could have concluded) that this Court s failure to perform the required prejudice analysis, coupled with Defendant s representations in the context of the motion to dismiss/sever in Tran, see, e.g., Tran Doc. (requesting dismissal of Gallegos claims without prejudice to the institution of a new and separate lawsuit ), justified an assumption that equitable tolling did apply, thereby creating a basis for reconsideration under Rule 0(b)(). The closest thing to an excuse Gallegos offers is to argue that the Court, in its Dismissal Order, indicated that Gallegos is free to file a new, separate lawsuit. Dismissal Order at. Gallegos argues Extraordinary circumstances, such as circumstances beyond the control of the party to be relieved of a judgment, are required in the context of sua sponte reconsideration under Rule 0(b). Phayboun v. Sullivan, No. CIV. S-0- EJGPAN, WL 0, at * (E.D. Cal. Sept., )
8 0 that this instruction did not put any time limit on the refiling. Gallegos, Doc. at. Gallegos suggestion that the Court s instruction eliminated all application of the statute of limitations cannot be countenanced. See Raspberry v. Garcia, F.d 0, (th Cir. 00) (petitioner s ignorance of the law and inability to correctly calculate the limitations period did not provide grounds for equitable tolling); Ford v. Pliler, 0 F.d, (th Cir. 00) (citing Pliler v. Ford, U.S. (00)) (equitable tolling does not apply when courts do not warn pro se litigants about deadlines, unless courts affirmatively mislead parties). Since all he had to do was refile the original complaint, merely deleting reference to his co-plaintiff s claims, it is not surprising that he is unable to come up with an excuse. Elmore, F.d at 0. Accordingly, reconsideration of the Dismissal Order is inappropriate and the OSC is DISCHARGED. Given that Gallegos re-filed his claims outside the statutory period by any measure of the deadline, his claims are time-barred. Gallegos claims must be DISMISSED for failure to file within the statute of limitations WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, as amendment would be futile. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above: () The OSC is DISCHARGED; () Defendant s motion to dismiss the Complaint in Gallegos (Doc. ) is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; and () The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the Gallegos case file. 0 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November, 0 /s/ Lawrence J. O Neill UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE
MARGIOTTI v. SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA Doc. 18 NOT FOR PUBLICATION (Doc. No. 17) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE GERARD MARGIOTTI Plaintiff,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendants.
Blank v. Hydro-Thermal Corporation et al Doc. 0 0 AARON BLANK, v. HYDRO-THERMAL CORPORATION, et al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, Defendants. Case No. -cv--w(bgs)
More informationCase acs Doc 52 Filed 08/20/15 Entered 08/20/15 16:11:30 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
Case 14-34747-acs Doc 52 Filed 08/20/15 Entered 08/20/15 16:11:30 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY In re: ) ) CLIFFORD J. AUSMUS ) CASE NO. 14-34747 ) CHAPTER 7
More informationCase 0:06-cv JIC Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/10/2013 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:06-cv-61337-JIC Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/10/2013 Page 1 of 6 KEITH TAYLOR, v. Plaintiff, NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, Defendant. / UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2007 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-30-2007 Graf v. Moore Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-1041 Follow this and additional
More informationCase 3:15-cv GNS Document 12 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 482
Case 3:15-cv-00773-GNS Document 12 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 482 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-00773-GNS ANGEL WOODSON
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Nicholas C Pappas v. Rojas et al Doc. 0 0 NICHOLAS C. PAPPAS, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, SERGEANT ROJAS, et al., Defendants. Case No. CV --CJC (SP MEMORANDUM
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS. Before HAGEL, MOORMAN, and GREENBERG, Judges. O R D E R
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO. 11-3375 BOBBY G. SMITH, APPELLANT, V. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE. Before HAGEL, MOORMAN, and GREENBERG, Judges. O R
More information: : : : : : : : : : x. Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, bring this action, inter
-SMG Yahraes et al v. Restaurant Associates Events Corp. et al Doc. 112 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------- x
More informationDIRECTIONS FOR FILING A MOTION TO SET ASIDE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN DISTRICT COURT
DIRECTIONS FOR FILING A MOTION TO SET ASIDE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN DISTRICT COURT [If the default judgment comes from Small Claims Court, go to that court and ask the small claims clerk for information
More informationUnited States District Court
Case:-cv-0-PJH Document Filed0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, et al., Plaintiffs, No. C - PJH v. ORDER MARGARET A. HAMBURG, M.D., 0 Defendant.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION JONATHAN BENJAMIN FLEMING, Case No. -CV-00-LHK v. Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND EXTENDING TIME FOR SERVICE
More informationto the response may be filed unless ordered by the Court...
Case :0-cv-00-SMM Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 WO EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, v. Plaintiff, AUTOZONE, INC., a Nevada corporation, Defendant. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 DWAYNE DENEGAL (FATIMA SHABAZZ), v. R. FARRELL, et al., Plaintiff, Defendants. CASE NO. :-cv-0-dad-jlt (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF S REQUEST
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * Plaintiff(s), Defendant(s).
Western National Insurance Group v. Hanlon et al Doc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * 0 WESTERN NATIONAL INSURANCE GROUP, v. CARRIE M. HANLON, ESQ., et al., Plaintiff(s), Defendant(s).
More informationmg Doc 9056 Filed 08/25/15 Entered 08/25/15 15:53:55 Main Document Pg 1 of 6. Debtors.
Pg 1 of 6 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re: RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL, LLC, et al., Debtors. Case No. 12-12020 (MG) Jointly Administered ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION
More informationCase 1:08-cv JSR Document 151 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:08-cv-02875-JSR Document 151 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------x LARYSSA JOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, 08 Civ.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK INTRODUCTION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. LEE STROCK, et al. Plaintiff, Defendants. Case # 15-CV-887-FPG DECISION & ORDER INTRODUCTION Plaintiff United States
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Celis Orduna et al v. Champion Drywall, Inc. of Nevada et al., Doc. 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 0 MODESTA CELIS ORDUNA, et al., v. Plaintiffs, CHAMPION DRYWALL, INC., OF NEVADA, et
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION
Hendley et al v. Garey et al Doc. 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION MICHAEL HENDLEY, DEMETRIUS SMITH, JR., as administrator for the estate of CRYNDOLYN
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DARLENE K. HESSLER, Trustee of the Hessler Family Living Trust, v. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Department of the Treasury,
More informationCase 1:05-cv RMC Document 35 Filed 04/19/2007 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:05-cv-02345-RMC Document 35 Filed 04/19/2007 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TEMBEC INC., et al., Petitioners, v. Civil Action No. 05-2345 (RMC UNITED STATES
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ~ V ~= o '~ ~ n N a~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, et al., v. Plaintiffs, ~ MARGARET A. HAMBURG, M.D., Defendant. J No. C - PJH -~. Before
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION 1 1 MARY SWEARINGEN and ROBERT FIGY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiffs, ATTUNE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE February 11, 2009 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE February 11, 2009 Session BETTY LOU GRAHAM v. WALLDORF PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hamilton County No. 07-1025 W. Frank
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Taylor et al v. DLI Properties, L.L.C, d/b/a FORD FIELD et al Doc. 80 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Melissa Taylor and Douglas St. Pierre, v. Plaintiffs, DLI
More informationCase3:13-cv SI Document71 Filed07/07/14 Page1 of 7
Case:-cv-0-SI Document Filed0/0/ Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 ROBERT E. FIGY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Thompson v. IP Network Solutions, Inc. Doc. 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION LISA A. THOMPSON, Plaintiff, No. 4:14-CV-1239 RLW v. IP NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendants.
Case :-cv-00-wqh-ags Document Filed 0// PageID. Page of 0 0 CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a municipal corporation, v. MONSANTO COMPANY; SOLUTIA, INC.; and PHARMACIA CORPORATION, HAYES, Judge: UNITED STATES DISTRICT
More informationCase 8:16-cv CEH-AAS Document 254 Filed 06/06/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID 6051 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Case 8:16-cv-02899-CEH-AAS Document 254 Filed 06/06/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID 6051 PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC., Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION
Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 16 Filed 03/09/12 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION SUSAN F. FISH, vs. Plaintiff, JO ACTON, ROBERT PAUL,
More informationPUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit April 22, 2008 PUBLISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT STEVE YANG, Petitioner - Appellant, v. No. 07-1459
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
Case: 12-2238 Document: 87-1 Page: 1 10/17/2013 1067829 9 12-2238-cv Estate of Mauricio Jaquez v. City of New York UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY
More informationCase 1:13-cv GAO Document 108 Filed 01/28/19 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO.
Case 1:13-cv-11578-GAO Document 108 Filed 01/28/19 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-11578-GAO BRIAN HOST, Plaintiff, v. FIRST UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
More informationCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL ====== PRESENT: THE HONORABLE S. JAMES OTERO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:11-cv-04175-SJO -PLA UNITED Document STATES 11 DISTRICT Filed 08/10/11 COURT Page 1 of Priority 5 Page ID #:103 Send Enter Closed JS-5/JS-6 Scan Only TITLE: James McFadden et. al. v. National Title
More informationCase 1:12-cv LJO-SKO Document 10 Filed 04/16/13 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO DIVISION
Case :-cv-0-ljo-sko Document Filed 0// Page of LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH M. FOLEY KENNETH M. FOLEY, ESQ. (State Bar #0) North Main Street, Suite No. MAILING ADDRESS: P. O. Box San Andreas, CA Telephone: ()
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Equal Opportunity Employment ) CASE NO. 1:10 CV 2882 Commission, ) ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN ) Vs. ) ) Kaplan Higher
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs, Defendants.
Case :-cv-0-wqh-bgs Document Filed 0/0/ PageID. Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARIA DEL SOCORRO QUINTERO PEREZ, BRIANDA ARACELY YANEZ QUINTERO, CAMELIA ITZAYANA
More informationCase 6:05-cv CJS-MWP Document 77 Filed 06/12/2009 Page 1 of 10
Case 6:05-cv-06344-CJS-MWP Document 77 Filed 06/12/2009 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SCOTT E. WOODWORTH and LYNN M. WOODWORTH, v. Plaintiffs, REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
More informationDefendant. SUMMARY ORDER. Plaintiff PPC Broadband, Inc., d/b/a PPC commenced this action
Case 5:11-cv-00761-GLS-DEP Document 228 Filed 05/20/15 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PPC BROADBAND, INC., d/b/a PPC, v. Plaintiff, 5:11-cv-761 (GLS/DEP) CORNING
More informationCase: 1:16-cv Document #: 45 Filed: 08/03/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:189
Case: 1:16-cv-07054 Document #: 45 Filed: 08/03/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:189 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION SAMUEL LIT, Plaintiff, v. No. 16 C 7054 Judge
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CIVIL NO. 4:86CV00291
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CIVIL NO. 4:86CV00291 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, ET AL., Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM
More informationCase 2:10-cv SDW -MCA Document 22 Filed 07/02/10 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 292
Case 2:10-cv-00809-SDW -MCA Document 22 Filed 07/02/10 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 292 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : JEFFREY SIDOTI, individually and on : behalf of all others
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :0-cv-000-WQH-KSC Document Filed // Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver for LA JOLLA BANK, FSB, Plaintiff, vs.
More informationDean Schomburg;v. Dow Jones & Co Inc
2012 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-14-2012 Dean Schomburg;v. Dow Jones & Co Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 12-2415
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 1:15-cv-05617 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/21/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:68 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION THOMAS HENRY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI`I
Hamilton v. State of Hawaii Doc. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI`I COLLEEN MICHELE HAMILTON, Plaintiff, vs. STATE OF HAWAII, Defendant. CIVIL NO. 16-00371 DKW-KJM ORDER
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ORDER AND REASONS
Kareem v. Markel Southwest Underwriters, Inc., et. al. Doc. 45 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA AMY KAREEM d/b/a JACKSON FASHION, LLC VERSUS MARKEL SOUTHWEST UNDERWRITERS, INC.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ROBERT FEDUNIAK, et al., v. Plaintiffs, OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY, Defendant. Case No. -cv-000-blf ORDER SUBMITTING
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:08-cv MOC-DSC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:08-cv-00540-MOC-DSC LUANNA SCOTT, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Vs. ) ORDER ) FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC., )
More informationCase 1:16-cv TWT Document 118 Filed 02/08/19 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:16-cv-03503-TWT Document 118 Filed 02/08/19 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION THE PAINE COLLEGE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION FILE
More informationCase 2:16-cv AJS Document 125 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:16-cv-01375-AJS Document 125 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA LISA GATHERS, et al., 16cv1375 v. Plaintiffs, LEAD CASE NEW YORK
More informationAnthony Catanzaro v. Nora Fischer
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-20-2014 Anthony Catanzaro v. Nora Fischer Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 13-4728 Follow
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Staples v. United States of America Doc. 35 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA WILLIAM STAPLES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-10-1007-C ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
More informationCase 3:14-cv VAB Document 62 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Case 3:14-cv-01714-VAB Document 62 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 11 PAUL T. EDWARDS, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT v. CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1714 (VAB) NORTH AMERICAN POWER AND GAS,
More informationUSA v. Frederick Banks
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-29-2010 USA v. Frederick Banks Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-2452 Follow this and
More informationAngel Santos v. Clyde Gainey
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-24-2010 Angel Santos v. Clyde Gainey Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 09-4578 Follow this
More informationUtah Court Rules on Trial Motions Francis J. Carney
Revised July 10, 2015 NOTE 18 December 2015: The trial and post-trial motions have been amended, effective 1 May 2016. See my blog post for 18 December 2015. This paper will be revised to reflect those
More informationCase 1:11-cv AWI-BAM Document 201 Filed 12/12/14 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-00-awi-bam Document 0 Filed // Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EUGENE E. FORTE, Plaintiff v. TOMMY JONES, Defendant. CASE NO. :-CV- 0 AWI BAM ORDER ON PLAINTIFF
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
For Publication IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS ALLENTON BROWNE, Appellant/Defendant, v. LAURA L.Y. GORE, Appellee/Plaintiff. Re: Super. Ct. Civ. No. 155/2010 (STX On Appeal from the Superior
More informationCase 1:07-cv PLF Document 212 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:07-cv-01144-PLF Document 212 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel., AARON J. WESTRICK, Ph.D., Civil Action No. 04-0280
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Mulhern et al v. Grigsby Doc. 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND JOHN MULHERN, et al., Appellants, v. Case No. RWT 13-cv-2376 NANCY SPENCER GRIGSBY, Chapter 13 Trustee
More informationmg Doc 8917 Filed 07/22/15 Entered 07/22/15 15:15:45 Main Document Pg 1 of 10
Pg 1 of 10 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 250 W. 55th Street New York, New York 10019 Telephone: (212 468-8000 Facsimile: (212 468-7900 Norman S. Rosenbaum Jordan A. Wishnew Erica J. Richards Counsel for The
More informationNOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 12a0622n.06. No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 12a0622n.06 No. 11-3572 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT In re: MICHELLE L. REESE, Debtor. WMS MOTOR SALES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationChristopher Kemezis v. James Matthews, Jr.
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-20-2010 Christopher Kemezis v. James Matthews, Jr. Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-4844
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Fletcher v. Miller et al Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND KEVIN DWAYNE FLETCHER, Inmate Identification No. 341-134, Petitioner, v. RICHARD E. MILLER, Acting Warden of North Branch
More informationLawrence Walker v. Comm Social Security
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-2-2010 Lawrence Walker v. Comm Social Security Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential Docket No. 08-1446 Follow
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case: 18-131 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 06/13/2018 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit In re: INTEX RECREATION CORP., INTEX TRADING LTD., THE COLEMAN
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION
Seumanu v. Davis Doc. 0 0 ROPATI A SEUMANU, v. Plaintiff, RON DAVIS, Warden, San Quentin State Prison, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION Case No. -cv-0-rs
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES GENERAL
Christina Avalos v Medtronic Inc et al Doc. 24 Title Christina Avalos v. Medtronic, Inc., et al. Page 1 of 5 Present: The Honorable KANE TIEN Deputy Clerk DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NOT
More informationCase 1:15-cv MAK Document 44 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 366 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:15-cv-01059-MAK Document 44 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 366 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : No. 15-1059
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 15-187 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States LOUIS CASTRO PEREZ, v. Petitioner, WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent.
More informationPaul McArdle v. Verizon Communications Inc
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-23-2014 Paul McArdle v. Verizon Communications Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 13-4207
More informationbrought suit against Defendants on March 30, Plaintiff Restraining Order (docs. 3, 4), and a Motion for Judicial Notice
West v. Olens et al Doc. 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION MARQUIS B. WEST, Plaintiff, v. CV 616-038 SAM OLENS, et al., Defendants. ORDER Pending
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 11, 2005 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 11, 2005 Session LOUIS HUDSON ROBERTS v. MARY ELIZABETH TODD ROBERTS Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 01D-1275 Muriel Robinson,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case:-cv-00-JSC Document Filed0// Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NORMAN DAVIS, v. Plaintiff, HOFFMAN-LaROCHE, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. -0
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION DORIS LOTT, Plaintiff, v. No. 15-00439-CV-W-DW LVNV FUNDING LLC, et al., Defendants. ORDER Before the Court is Defendants
More informationCase 3:16-cv MMD-WGC Document 22 Filed 03/06/18 Page 1 of 17
Case :-cv-000-mmd-wgc Document Filed 0/0/ Page of RENE L. VALLADARES Federal Public Defender Nevada State Bar No. S. ALEX SPELMAN Assistant Federal Public Defender Nevada State Bar No. E. Bonneville, Ste.
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED APR 18 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS LINDA RUBENSTEIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
More informationO'Donnell v. Vencor Inc., 466 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir., 2006)
466 F.3d 1104 Alice Faye O'DONNELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VENCOR INC., aka First Healthcare Corporation dba Kachina Point Health Center; Kachina Point Healthcare; Does, 1 through 25, inclusive; Red,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case: 17-107 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 02/23/2017 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit In re: GOOGLE INC., Petitioner 2017-107 On Petition for Writ
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON September 21, 2005 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON September 21, 2005 Session ANDRE MATTHEWS v. SHELBY COUNTY GOVERNMENT A Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. 110180-2 The Honorable
More informationCase 2:11-cv RBS-TEM Document 73 Filed 01/13/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 532 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Case 2:11-cv-00424-RBS-TEM Document 73 Filed 01/13/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 532 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division AUTOMATED TRACKING SOLUTIONS, LLC, Plaintiff, FILED
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MEMORANDUM OPINION
PROTOPAPAS et al v. EMCOR GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC. et al Doc. 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GEORGE PROTOPAPAS, Plaintiff, v. EMCOR GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC., Civil Action
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. v. Case No. 8:08-CV-1465-T-33TBM ORDER
Brown v. Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Doc. 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION IVANHOE G. BROWN, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:08-CV-1465-T-33TBM HILLSBOROUGH AREA
More informationCase3:08-cv MEJ Document239 Filed10/21/14 Page1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA I.
Case:0-cv-0-MEJ Document Filed// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EDUARDO DE LA TORRE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CASHCALL, INC., Defendant. Case No. 0-cv-0-MEJ ORDER RE:
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Flores v. United States Of America et al Doc. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII XAVIER FLORES, vs. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, RUSS JACOBS
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LINDA PERRYMENT, Plaintiff, v. SKY CHEFS, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-00-kaw ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PARTIALLY DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S
More information6:13-cv MGL Date Filed 02/21/14 Entry Number 32 Page 1 of 10
6:13-cv-00257-MGL Date Filed 02/21/14 Entry Number 32 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Gregory Somers, ) Case No. 6:13-cv-00257-MGL-JDA
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA
IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA KATSUMI KENASTON, ) ) Appellant, ) ) Supreme Court No. S-11600 vs. ) ) Trial Court Case No. 3AN-04-3485 CI ) STATE OF ALASKA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) APPEAL FROM
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit HARMON CARTER, JR., Claimant-Appellant v. ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee 2014-7122 Appeal from the United
More informationIn this class action lawsuit, plaintiff Practice Management Support Services,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PRACTICE MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ) SERVICES, INC., an Illinois corporation, ) individually and as the representative of )
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. Norfolk Division FINAL MEMORANDUM
Austin v. Johnson Doc. 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division FILED FEB -2 2GOD BILLY AUSTIN, #333347, CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT NORFOLK. VA Petitioner,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE September 14, 2009 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE September 14, 2009 Session KAY F. FRITZ v. CVS CORPORATION D/B/A CVS PHARMACY, INC. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County No. 02-C-285 Jeffrey
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION OPINION AND ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION HUGH JARRATT and JARRATT INDUSTRIES, LLC PLAINTIFFS v. No. 5:16-CV-05302 AMAZON.COM, INC. DEFENDANT OPINION AND ORDER
More informationCase 2:13-cv MJP Document 34 Filed 10/02/13 Page 1 of 14
Case :-cv-00-mjp Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, CASE NO. C- MJP v. Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 0:16-cv JIC
Case: 16-13477 Date Filed: 10/09/2018 Page: 1 of 14 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 16-13477 D.C. Docket No. 0:16-cv-60197-JIC MICHAEL HISEY, Plaintiff
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Tan v. Grubhub, Inc. Doc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 ANDREW TAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GRUBHUB, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. -cv-0-jsc ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS MOTION
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 05-2854 DR. JOSÉ S. BELAVAL, INC., Plaintiff/Appellant, RIO GRANDE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC.; CONCILIO DE SALUD INTEGRAL DE LOIZA, INC., Plaintiffs,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC., Plaintiff, v. Case No: 8:16-cv-3110-MSS-TGW EIZO, INC., Defendant. / ORDER THIS
More information